Some background info: I've been DMing a Saturday group for about 2 years now and it's been really amazing. All of us were introduced to D&D in the same relative timeframe, so it's been fun to grow as a DM while also watching my group grow as players. Our campaigns have a little bit of everything (roleplay, combat, wilderness), but the group generally really enjoys roleplaying, character development/deepening, and uncovering both the short and long-term stories arcs I've crafted for them.
Skip forward to today: We recently brought in a new member, who I suggested would be a great fit. She adores D&D and really likes the roleplaying/intrigue aspect of the game, which I knew from the start would be perfect for this group. Unfortunately, an unforeseen circumstance arose after her first session: I found out that she doesn't like combat. Not that she doesn't prefer it, no, she doesn't like it at all. No aspect of combat interests her. The unfortunate reality is that the rest of the party members find combat enjoyable and fun, and there are sessions where there is just as much combat as there is roleplaying. I wanted to see if there was anyone out there who has had a problem similar to this (e.g. A player in a group that enjoys combat that has no interest in it whatsoever) and if so what you have tried or what you would suggest moving forward? The player is great to have in every other aspect of a session, and she isn't excessively tuned out during combat, so I don't believe removing her from the group is warranted. Obviously though, as a DM, I want to be sure all my players are having as much fun as possible at all times, so I wondering how to try and accomplish that.
It's going to sound a bit harsh but if combat is part of your game and the rest of the party enjoy it, it's kind of a suck it up or move on moment. You can try to encourage them to get into it, some people tend to think roleplay has to stop the moment initiative is rolled but you can roleplay your combat just as much as anything else in the game but if they are just that anti combat there isn't much you can do. I hate to say it but I don't think changing the way your group has been playing for a couple of years to accommodate one new player is really the best course of action.
I have played in groups where the exact opposite was true and the player just didn't like roleplay, at all, every time it was not combat or dungeon exploration their character would stand off to the side mute. Although they were adamant they didn't mind just not participating it does make it uncomfortable for the rest of the players and we felt like better to get through this quickly so X can enjoy themselves as well. So I would be conscious not just of trying to make your new player welcome but make sure your other players are not feeling awkward or like they have to sacrifice enjoyment so there is less combat.
First of all as a DM unless your party all like the exact same things you will not please them all all of the time, and that is ok. I look at it in terms of telling a characters personal story. Usually this means the other players taking a backseat as that players story is told.
Now in your case the player has joined an established group and DnD by definition is a system in which combat happens, it is not impossible but is very hard to run a DnD roleplay only campaign as every character class is in some way built to be good at an aspect of fighting.
I would sit down with the player and first of all explain that combat is a part of the campaign, there will be fights there will be a bbeg to beat and kill, it is part of the challenge. Then ask her why she doesn’t enjoy it, maybe the way you run combat is boring to her, do you simply roll the dice and make it a very mechanical exercise or are you and your players roleplaying out every hit and miss, describing what happens based on the dice rolls, maybe she doesn’t understand the tactical side of the combat. If you have been playing for 2 years maybe she is a little overwhelmed by suddenly having an experienced character and isn’t sure what to do, maybe she sees her only options being to do one thing. Remember a new player usually spends time learning about the nuances of combat as they also learn all the things they can do. Maybe a change of class/sub class would make her enjoy it a bit more.
First of all, does she understand that combat is just as good a chance to roleplay as anytime else?
Good roleplayers narrate their combat action in a highly entertaining way, and you can take a free action to shout something out...
if that doesn’t sell it to her, bluntly inform her D&D might not be the game for her. At its core, D&D is a game where you plunder dungeons and slay dragons. The rest is fluff at the end of the day.
Have you spoken to her about this, or is this mostly you reading the room? Because I would suggest actually bringing it up in a private discussion.
"Hey I've noticed you don't seem to be enjoying combat very much, is there something I can do to make it better for you?" Then take her at her word when she tells you.
If she expresses that combat just isn't for her, but that she's okay taking more of a back seat during fights, then maybe it's fine! But if she says that combat just doesn't engage her very much, then start thinking of solutions. Like someone else said, combat can be full of roleplay, too. Describing physical action is also roleplaying. If that still doesn't work out very well for her, maybe start having fights that also include other pillars at the same time. Maybe there are monsters to fight, but also a puzzle that needs to be solved at the same time or an obstacle course that needs to be navigated during combat. Or if she likes the social interaction pillar include friendly NPC's that have to be interacted with during fights. Maybe she would enjoy being the protector to some innocent kids who have to be reassured and otherwise managed during the fight.
Hopefully these suggestions are helpful. In the end it comes down to open communication with your player.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Uh kinda interesting, combat is really a pretty core aspect to D&D in fact probably one of its most core components so adoring D&D but not liking combat seems like a mixed understanding from the player.
With that said yeah, roleplaying doesn't have to end once combat is initiated, and even still if they don't really roleplay much but don't bog the rest of the group in combat heavy sessions with passive aggressive mannerisms than it's probably ok. I've seen plenty of others that just kinda don't contribute much when RP starts but light up during combat and its been fine as they still enjoyed the games
First of all, does she understand that combat is just as good a chance to roleplay as anytime else?
Good roleplayers narrate their combat action in a highly entertaining way, and you can take a free action to shout something out...
if that doesn’t sell it to her, bluntly inform her D&D might not be the game for her. At its core, D&D is a game where you plunder dungeons and slay dragons. The rest is fluff at the end of the day.
I will say that I think DnD has long moved on from the plunder dungeon and slay dragons aspect, I have run some really good political intrigue campaigns, but ultimately conflict is resolved at the end of a sword, crossbow or flaming ball of fire lol.
Personally I think the best idea is to try and put more roleplaying into the combat itself. Don't just play numbers and abilities, but also play the characters themselves.You don't need to change the ratio between socializing, combat and exploration, just put some more role-play into the combat.
I don’t think you should be changing anything at all, if all your players have been enjoying the way the game is run it would be unfair to now change it because of just one player, I think this is for her to decide whether the way your table plays is fun for her, with the current amount or roleplay, exploration and combat, if she decides she dislikes the combat bits more than she likes everything else, perhaps this isn’t the right table for her? There ARE tables that focus heavily on roleplay with minimal amounts of combat, there are probably also tables that do only roleplay and exploration with no combat at all, those might be a better fit for her, you could also suggest other systems apart from D&D, not all of them are so heavily focused on combat as D&D.
I don’t think you should be changing anything at all, if all your players have been enjoying the way the game is run it would be unfair to now change it because of just one player, I think this is for her to decide whether the way your table plays is fun for her,
^^^^^ This, 1,000%
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
if that doesn’t sell it to her, bluntly inform her D&D might not be the game for her. At its core, D&D is a game where you plunder dungeons and slay dragons. The rest is fluff at the end of the day.
Just as D&D does not have to be about roleplaying, D&D does not have to be about combat either. There is nothing wrong with running a pacifist game, or turning combat into a skill check like persuasion or arcana to quickly resolve it. D&D can be anything you want.
In this case though, I would just let the player go and wish her best of luck, since existing players already enjoy how the current campaign is run and they all like combat.
if that doesn’t sell it to her, bluntly inform her D&D might not be the game for her. At its core, D&D is a game where you plunder dungeons and slay dragons. The rest is fluff at the end of the day.
Just as D&D does not have to be about roleplaying, D&D does not have to be about combat either. There is nothing wrong with running a pacifist game, or turning combat into a skill check like persuasion or arcana to quickly resolve it. D&D can be anything you want.
In this case though, I would just let the player go and wish her best of luck, since existing players already enjoy how the current campaign is run and they all like combat.
While I’d like to agree in theory, it’s unfortunately true that if a player or group has no interest in combat whatsoever, D&D isn’t the right game.
D&D is designed in a certain way. The books claim that there are three pillars of play, but the actual rules don’t really support them at all equally. In terms of mechanics, the game is maybe 80% combat, 20% exploration, and a negligible percentage for social interaction. Can you do a game that focuses entirely on social interaction? For sure! But you don’t need D&D to do it, and D&D won’t actually be providing any kind of mechanical support for that game, because it doesn’t have the rules for it.
I’m routinely frustrated by how mechanically boring ability checks are, but the reason for that is that D&D fundamentally de-emphasizes them in favor of rich combat features. A great example of this is the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature, which is possibly the worst feature in the entire game, because its entire purpose is to simply remove entirely a huge number of ability checks from play. D&D doesn’t want you to make many ability checks. It wants you either to fight or to roleplay without rules.
You can try to use what rules D&D does provide for a purely social intrigue game, but it’s going to be a bad game. It’s like trying to bring a station wagon to a drag race.
Combat roleplay is what your character does when the stakes are highest. The very presence of combat requires that two parties are so devoted to an ideal that they are willing to put their lives on the line for it. To me, this is much richer soil for roleplay than when you're just hanging out in a tavern with nothing at risk.
Communicate this to the player. Roleplaying is a fundamental aspect to the whole game, not an alternative game mode to combat. If you are interested in trying to draw her out a bit more, you could play up the roleplay on your side of the battle. Have some goblin triplets squabbling amongst themselves as they shoot arrows. Have a mercenary pause and quote a higher rate to the corrupt noble once he gives the PCs a once-over. Have alternative or contrasting goals emerge during combat that forces the PCs to weigh pros and cons and think about the consequences of their choice ("hey maybe we can offer a sweeter deal to that merc").
I normally wouldn't recommend going that much out of your way when it's just one person that's not already enjoying the game, but in this case it's a pretty good way to enrich combats in general and you all might enjoy it.
But I agree with the sentiment that if she is just determined not to enjoy combat, D&D might not be the game for her. Even if she's ok with basically checking out for half the session, it does put a strain on the others who will feel obligated to rush through combat so the game can get back to a scene where everyone is having fun.
if that doesn’t sell it to her, bluntly inform her D&D might not be the game for her. At its core, D&D is a game where you plunder dungeons and slay dragons. The rest is fluff at the end of the day.
Just as D&D does not have to be about roleplaying, D&D does not have to be about combat either. There is nothing wrong with running a pacifist game, or turning combat into a skill check like persuasion or arcana to quickly resolve it. D&D can be anything you want.
In this case though, I would just let the player go and wish her best of luck, since existing players already enjoy how the current campaign is run and they all like combat.
While I’d like to agree in theory, it’s unfortunately true that if a player or group has no interest in combat whatsoever, D&D isn’t the right game.
D&D is designed in a certain way. The books claim that there are three pillars of play, but the actual rules don’t really support them at all equally. In terms of mechanics, the game is maybe 80% combat, 20% exploration, and a negligible percentage for social interaction. Can you do a game that focuses entirely on social interaction? For sure! But you don’t need D&D to do it, and D&D won’t actually be providing any kind of mechanical support for that game, because it doesn’t have the rules for it.
I’m routinely frustrated by how mechanically boring ability checks are, but the reason for that is that D&D fundamentally de-emphasizes them in favor of rich combat features. A great example of this is the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature, which is possibly the worst feature in the entire game, because its entire purpose is to simply remove entirely a huge number of ability checks from play. D&D doesn’t want you to make many ability checks. It wants you either to fight or to roleplay without rules.
You can try to use what rules D&D does provide for a purely social intrigue game, but it’s going to be a bad game. It’s like trying to bring a station wagon to a drag race.
While it is true that you do not need D&D to do a non-combat game, D&D is the gateway game for the vast majority of people, and often the only game due to how dominant D&D is. I am not sure if using another system is feasible or practical if you do not already have a group to begin playing with.
As for mechanical support though, yeah, D&D is pretty lacking in exploration and social encounters department. However, lacking mechanical support is not necessarily a bad thing as some groups prefer lighter mechanics compared to something crunchier. For those that do desire more crunch though, there is also the option of porting mechanics over from another game rather than switching to an entirely new system.
Combat is the largest component to the game, so if you don't like doing it, there's a lot more games out there that focus on it less.
I don't say this to sound mean like "enjoy combat or get out!" It's just factually true that DnD is one of the more tactically complex and combat-focused ttrpg's on the market. Two-thirds of the player's handbook is focused on rules governing combat, and what's left is a handful of asides about exploration and social encounters, but nothing really substantial. Basically you take combat away and I really don't know how much of DnD is left. It's not the only thing, but it is the glue that holds the game together.
I would have a conversation with your player about that, because it sounds like she really would rather play monster of the week or call of cthulu. While she may enjoy the lore behind dnd and the world aesthetic of dnd, she probably in the long run won't enjoy actually playing.
If, however, she doesn't like combat but doesn't mind it for the sake of the other players, you may be able to salvage the situation.
*Edit*
Reading what others have written, I want to second the concept that combat and roleplay are not mutually exclusive. Combat *is* roleplay, it's just roleplaying your character's words and actions in direct conflict, vs roleplaying your character's words outside of direct conflict.
She doesn't even necessarily have to give up the world aesthetic that she might enjoy about D&D. It's hardly the only medieval fantasy RPG out there (certainly not the only system that can be used to craft a medieval fantasy setting), and some of them are more narrative/roleplay-focused.
They say that D&D has three "Pillars"; Combat, Exploration, and Social. Combat is what most of the rules cover. Most of the rest is about Exploration, and there is a tiny amount of actual rules for Social, and that's really as it should be. You need all three for a really good game. Stand only on one pillar, you, lean too hard, and you might fall off and knock the game over. Roleplaying is what you do while you are in combat or exploring, and you do a lot of combat while you are exploring.
By all means, talk it over with everyone, both as a group, and in private with her. It is likely that something can be worked out. Do none of the others roleplay at all? Perhaps they will benefit from her example. Don't change the game. If you and your players have been having fun don't spoil it.
To be fair, there are more social interaction rules than many people know. They're just hidden in the DMG in Chapter 8. It's nowhere near as crunchy as combat, but I think that's a good thing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Maybe she would like combat more if it wasn't described as 2 opponents standing still and taking turns swinging weapons at eachother. When I run combat instead of describing a not hit as a "he swing sword and miss" I say "he takes a swing with his broadsword but you parry it just before it can slice your face" or "the owlbear tries to claw at your face but you hold up your shield and block it" just making combat actions more epic can make it more immersive for players, therefore they'll enjoy it more
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
my name is not Bryce
Actor
Certified Dark Sun enjoyer
usually on forum games and not contributing to conversations ¯\_ (ツ)_/
For every user who writes 5 paragraph essays as each of their posts: Remember to touch grass occasionally
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Some background info: I've been DMing a Saturday group for about 2 years now and it's been really amazing. All of us were introduced to D&D in the same relative timeframe, so it's been fun to grow as a DM while also watching my group grow as players. Our campaigns have a little bit of everything (roleplay, combat, wilderness), but the group generally really enjoys roleplaying, character development/deepening, and uncovering both the short and long-term stories arcs I've crafted for them.
Skip forward to today: We recently brought in a new member, who I suggested would be a great fit. She adores D&D and really likes the roleplaying/intrigue aspect of the game, which I knew from the start would be perfect for this group. Unfortunately, an unforeseen circumstance arose after her first session: I found out that she doesn't like combat. Not that she doesn't prefer it, no, she doesn't like it at all. No aspect of combat interests her. The unfortunate reality is that the rest of the party members find combat enjoyable and fun, and there are sessions where there is just as much combat as there is roleplaying. I wanted to see if there was anyone out there who has had a problem similar to this (e.g. A player in a group that enjoys combat that has no interest in it whatsoever) and if so what you have tried or what you would suggest moving forward? The player is great to have in every other aspect of a session, and she isn't excessively tuned out during combat, so I don't believe removing her from the group is warranted. Obviously though, as a DM, I want to be sure all my players are having as much fun as possible at all times, so I wondering how to try and accomplish that.
It's going to sound a bit harsh but if combat is part of your game and the rest of the party enjoy it, it's kind of a suck it up or move on moment. You can try to encourage them to get into it, some people tend to think roleplay has to stop the moment initiative is rolled but you can roleplay your combat just as much as anything else in the game but if they are just that anti combat there isn't much you can do. I hate to say it but I don't think changing the way your group has been playing for a couple of years to accommodate one new player is really the best course of action.
I have played in groups where the exact opposite was true and the player just didn't like roleplay, at all, every time it was not combat or dungeon exploration their character would stand off to the side mute. Although they were adamant they didn't mind just not participating it does make it uncomfortable for the rest of the players and we felt like better to get through this quickly so X can enjoy themselves as well. So I would be conscious not just of trying to make your new player welcome but make sure your other players are not feeling awkward or like they have to sacrifice enjoyment so there is less combat.
First of all as a DM unless your party all like the exact same things you will not please them all all of the time, and that is ok. I look at it in terms of telling a characters personal story. Usually this means the other players taking a backseat as that players story is told.
Now in your case the player has joined an established group and DnD by definition is a system in which combat happens, it is not impossible but is very hard to run a DnD roleplay only campaign as every character class is in some way built to be good at an aspect of fighting.
I would sit down with the player and first of all explain that combat is a part of the campaign, there will be fights there will be a bbeg to beat and kill, it is part of the challenge. Then ask her why she doesn’t enjoy it, maybe the way you run combat is boring to her, do you simply roll the dice and make it a very mechanical exercise or are you and your players roleplaying out every hit and miss, describing what happens based on the dice rolls, maybe she doesn’t understand the tactical side of the combat. If you have been playing for 2 years maybe she is a little overwhelmed by suddenly having an experienced character and isn’t sure what to do, maybe she sees her only options being to do one thing. Remember a new player usually spends time learning about the nuances of combat as they also learn all the things they can do. Maybe a change of class/sub class would make her enjoy it a bit more.
First of all, does she understand that combat is just as good a chance to roleplay as anytime else?
Good roleplayers narrate their combat action in a highly entertaining way, and you can take a free action to shout something out...
if that doesn’t sell it to her, bluntly inform her D&D might not be the game for her. At its core, D&D is a game where you plunder dungeons and slay dragons. The rest is fluff at the end of the day.
No combat at all, DnD 5e is not the right game.
Have you spoken to her about this, or is this mostly you reading the room? Because I would suggest actually bringing it up in a private discussion.
"Hey I've noticed you don't seem to be enjoying combat very much, is there something I can do to make it better for you?" Then take her at her word when she tells you.
If she expresses that combat just isn't for her, but that she's okay taking more of a back seat during fights, then maybe it's fine! But if she says that combat just doesn't engage her very much, then start thinking of solutions. Like someone else said, combat can be full of roleplay, too. Describing physical action is also roleplaying. If that still doesn't work out very well for her, maybe start having fights that also include other pillars at the same time. Maybe there are monsters to fight, but also a puzzle that needs to be solved at the same time or an obstacle course that needs to be navigated during combat. Or if she likes the social interaction pillar include friendly NPC's that have to be interacted with during fights. Maybe she would enjoy being the protector to some innocent kids who have to be reassured and otherwise managed during the fight.
Hopefully these suggestions are helpful. In the end it comes down to open communication with your player.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Uh kinda interesting, combat is really a pretty core aspect to D&D in fact probably one of its most core components so adoring D&D but not liking combat seems like a mixed understanding from the player.
With that said yeah, roleplaying doesn't have to end once combat is initiated, and even still if they don't really roleplay much but don't bog the rest of the group in combat heavy sessions with passive aggressive mannerisms than it's probably ok. I've seen plenty of others that just kinda don't contribute much when RP starts but light up during combat and its been fine as they still enjoyed the games
I will say that I think DnD has long moved on from the plunder dungeon and slay dragons aspect, I have run some really good political intrigue campaigns, but ultimately conflict is resolved at the end of a sword, crossbow or flaming ball of fire lol.
Personally I think the best idea is to try and put more roleplaying into the combat itself. Don't just play numbers and abilities, but also play the characters themselves.You don't need to change the ratio between socializing, combat and exploration, just put some more role-play into the combat.
I don’t think you should be changing anything at all, if all your players have been enjoying the way the game is run it would be unfair to now change it because of just one player, I think this is for her to decide whether the way your table plays is fun for her, with the current amount or roleplay, exploration and combat, if she decides she dislikes the combat bits more than she likes everything else, perhaps this isn’t the right table for her? There ARE tables that focus heavily on roleplay with minimal amounts of combat, there are probably also tables that do only roleplay and exploration with no combat at all, those might be a better fit for her, you could also suggest other systems apart from D&D, not all of them are so heavily focused on combat as D&D.
^^^^^ This, 1,000%
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Just as D&D does not have to be about roleplaying, D&D does not have to be about combat either. There is nothing wrong with running a pacifist game, or turning combat into a skill check like persuasion or arcana to quickly resolve it. D&D can be anything you want.
In this case though, I would just let the player go and wish her best of luck, since existing players already enjoy how the current campaign is run and they all like combat.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
While I’d like to agree in theory, it’s unfortunately true that if a player or group has no interest in combat whatsoever, D&D isn’t the right game.
D&D is designed in a certain way. The books claim that there are three pillars of play, but the actual rules don’t really support them at all equally. In terms of mechanics, the game is maybe 80% combat, 20% exploration, and a negligible percentage for social interaction. Can you do a game that focuses entirely on social interaction? For sure! But you don’t need D&D to do it, and D&D won’t actually be providing any kind of mechanical support for that game, because it doesn’t have the rules for it.
I’m routinely frustrated by how mechanically boring ability checks are, but the reason for that is that D&D fundamentally de-emphasizes them in favor of rich combat features. A great example of this is the rogue’s Reliable Talent feature, which is possibly the worst feature in the entire game, because its entire purpose is to simply remove entirely a huge number of ability checks from play. D&D doesn’t want you to make many ability checks. It wants you either to fight or to roleplay without rules.
You can try to use what rules D&D does provide for a purely social intrigue game, but it’s going to be a bad game. It’s like trying to bring a station wagon to a drag race.
Combat roleplay is what your character does when the stakes are highest. The very presence of combat requires that two parties are so devoted to an ideal that they are willing to put their lives on the line for it. To me, this is much richer soil for roleplay than when you're just hanging out in a tavern with nothing at risk.
Communicate this to the player. Roleplaying is a fundamental aspect to the whole game, not an alternative game mode to combat. If you are interested in trying to draw her out a bit more, you could play up the roleplay on your side of the battle. Have some goblin triplets squabbling amongst themselves as they shoot arrows. Have a mercenary pause and quote a higher rate to the corrupt noble once he gives the PCs a once-over. Have alternative or contrasting goals emerge during combat that forces the PCs to weigh pros and cons and think about the consequences of their choice ("hey maybe we can offer a sweeter deal to that merc").
I normally wouldn't recommend going that much out of your way when it's just one person that's not already enjoying the game, but in this case it's a pretty good way to enrich combats in general and you all might enjoy it.
But I agree with the sentiment that if she is just determined not to enjoy combat, D&D might not be the game for her. Even if she's ok with basically checking out for half the session, it does put a strain on the others who will feel obligated to rush through combat so the game can get back to a scene where everyone is having fun.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
While it is true that you do not need D&D to do a non-combat game, D&D is the gateway game for the vast majority of people, and often the only game due to how dominant D&D is. I am not sure if using another system is feasible or practical if you do not already have a group to begin playing with.
As for mechanical support though, yeah, D&D is pretty lacking in exploration and social encounters department. However, lacking mechanical support is not necessarily a bad thing as some groups prefer lighter mechanics compared to something crunchier. For those that do desire more crunch though, there is also the option of porting mechanics over from another game rather than switching to an entirely new system.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Combat is the largest component to the game, so if you don't like doing it, there's a lot more games out there that focus on it less.
I don't say this to sound mean like "enjoy combat or get out!" It's just factually true that DnD is one of the more tactically complex and combat-focused ttrpg's on the market. Two-thirds of the player's handbook is focused on rules governing combat, and what's left is a handful of asides about exploration and social encounters, but nothing really substantial. Basically you take combat away and I really don't know how much of DnD is left. It's not the only thing, but it is the glue that holds the game together.
I would have a conversation with your player about that, because it sounds like she really would rather play monster of the week or call of cthulu. While she may enjoy the lore behind dnd and the world aesthetic of dnd, she probably in the long run won't enjoy actually playing.
If, however, she doesn't like combat but doesn't mind it for the sake of the other players, you may be able to salvage the situation.
*Edit*
Reading what others have written, I want to second the concept that combat and roleplay are not mutually exclusive. Combat *is* roleplay, it's just roleplaying your character's words and actions in direct conflict, vs roleplaying your character's words outside of direct conflict.
She doesn't even necessarily have to give up the world aesthetic that she might enjoy about D&D. It's hardly the only medieval fantasy RPG out there (certainly not the only system that can be used to craft a medieval fantasy setting), and some of them are more narrative/roleplay-focused.
They say that D&D has three "Pillars"; Combat, Exploration, and Social. Combat is what most of the rules cover. Most of the rest is about Exploration, and there is a tiny amount of actual rules for Social, and that's really as it should be. You need all three for a really good game. Stand only on one pillar, you, lean too hard, and you might fall off and knock the game over. Roleplaying is what you do while you are in combat or exploring, and you do a lot of combat while you are exploring.
By all means, talk it over with everyone, both as a group, and in private with her. It is likely that something can be worked out. Do none of the others roleplay at all? Perhaps they will benefit from her example. Don't change the game. If you and your players have been having fun don't spoil it.
<Insert clever signature here>
To be fair, there are more social interaction rules than many people know. They're just hidden in the DMG in Chapter 8. It's nowhere near as crunchy as combat, but I think that's a good thing.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Maybe she would like combat more if it wasn't described as 2 opponents standing still and taking turns swinging weapons at eachother. When I run combat instead of describing a not hit as a "he swing sword and miss" I say "he takes a swing with his broadsword but you parry it just before it can slice your face" or "the owlbear tries to claw at your face but you hold up your shield and block it" just making combat actions more epic can make it more immersive for players, therefore they'll enjoy it more
my name is not Bryce
Actor
Certified Dark Sun enjoyer
usually on forum games and not contributing to conversations ¯\_ (ツ)_/
For every user who writes 5 paragraph essays as each of their posts: Remember to touch grass occasionally